No NRA Endorsement for California Gubernatorial Candidates?
Michael Ejercito
candidates for Governor of California?
Michael
Dan Lungren for Governor of California
CSU College Republicans
joshua geller
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
>candidates for Governor of California?
Dear Michael,
This is true.
My best,
Josh Geller
Green Republicans of California
Concerned Citizen
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
> candidates for Governor of California?
>
> Michael
>
> Dan Lungren for Governor of California
>
> CSU College Republicans
Perhaps it was because none of the candidates were "A" rated. I am
unfamiliar with the candidates as I am not from that state.
Sometimes you have to vote for the candidate that more pro-gun than the
other even if there is no very pro-gun, "A" rated candidate. I hope
that for California's sake as well as the U.S. that some pro-gun
candidates make it. Good luck!
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln Speech, 19 May 1856
Michael Richmann
>
> Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
> candidates for Governor of California?
If you even have to stop and think about that one...
Mark
parties that don't pay them off I guess.
--
Mark
Concerned Citizen wrote in message <3635075E...@home.com>...
Mark
>Regarding gun rights, one is terrible & the other is awful. The Libertarian
>candidate for governor may not stand the proverbial snowball's chance of
>getting elected, but he (and the party) express solidly pro-gun rights
>positions.
JT,
But what better way to send them a message than to Vote for Steve Kubby, if
we keep voting for the scum the Republicrats give us, why should they
change?
--
Mark
JT Hayes wrote in message <4aaZ1.524$mg.34...@twinkie.callamer.com>...
>The link below takes you to a Sacramento Bee article that contains links to
>web sites dedicated to the upcoming election. There's some good stuff
there,
>definitely worth looking at.
>
>http://www.sacbee.com/campaign98/commentary/misc/edit1.981025.html
>
>
>
tiwolf
redraw the voting districts in the state of California, this gubernatorial
election will shape the face of California political scene for the next
decade. Vote 3rd party and you ensure that the Democrats will get to draw
the district lines thus ensure many more anti-2nd Amendment Dems in the US
Congress. I think a vote for a Libertarian is less than a wasted vote, it is
a de facto vote for the current California Democratic Party that is
vehemently opposed to the 2nd Amendment. This is a vote against all gun
owners in California.
JT Hayes wrote in message <4aaZ1.524$mg.34...@twinkie.callamer.com>...
Bama Brian
As others in this news group will tell you, both Dan Lungren and Grey
Davis got rated
"F" by the NRA.
So I'm voting my conscience this time. The one party that does support
the RKBA is
the Libertarian party. And that's who's getting my vote.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life Member
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
> candidates for Governor of California?
>
JT Hayes
web sites dedicated to the upcoming election. There's some good stuff there,
definitely worth looking at.
http://www.sacbee.com/campaign98/commentary/misc/edit1.981025.html
Personally, I can't bring myself to vote for either Lungren or Davis.
Michael Ejercito
geller) wrote:
> In article <mejercit-261...@134.139.52.22>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> > Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
> >candidates for Governor of California?
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> This is true.
>
> My best,
>
> Josh Geller
> Green Republicans of California
Why doe the NRA refuse to endorse California gubernatorial candidates?
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> Lungren and Davis both got F's. Steve Kubby got an A, but they won't endorse
> parties that don't pay them off I guess.
>
> --
> Mark
Why did Lungren and Davis get F's?
Lone_Wolf
#In article <712em7$ihg$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, dcl...@best.com (joshua
#geller) wrote:
#> In article <mejercit-261...@134.139.52.22>,
#> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
#>
#> > Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
#> >candidates for Governor of California?
#>
#> Dear Michael,
#>
#> This is true.
#>
#> My best,
#>
#> Josh Geller
#> Green Republicans of California
# Why doe the NRA refuse to endorse California gubernatorial candidates?
Because both the Republican and Democrat running are gun grabbers?
James
# Michael
# CSU College Republicans
Mike Haas
>
>
> Michael
Davis received an F because he didn't return the questionairre to
NRA (automatic F). Probably an appropriate grade, based on his
terribly anti-gun campaign rhetoric. But his opponent
has worked hard to destroy our Right-To-Bear-Arms, that's for sure!
Lungren... you should have to ask? Just look at...
http://www.NRAWinningTeam.com/
...although national in scope, the site has a special
"Lungren anti-gun reference" as the *first thing*.
Check it out... he's certainly the worst
anti-gunner in history... he changed California from a gun control state
to a gun CONFISCATION state. On top of that, he has a LONG history of
voting against NRA, supporting the Brady Bill and HCI, etc.
After Pete Wilson protected RKBA both in 1997 and 1998 with VETOS
of major gun control bills, I'm thinking of sending GOP a big check.
Dan Lungren is the reason I haven't. You Republicans need to beat the
California wing of your party up a bit for that one.
The official platform of the CA GOP calls for the repeal of the Califonia
Assault Weapons Act. Yet, Danny Lungren USED THAT ACT TO CONFISCATE GUNS
AND THREATEN FELONY PROSECUTION TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA GUN
OWNERS! He's just simply, plainly, the worst.
Cheers,
Mike Haas
tiwolf
both earned the "F" rating. In respect to why most issue oriented
organizations will not back a 3rd party candidate is simple; it is for the
most part a waste of time, energy, and resources to back a candidate that
has no shot at winning a major election.
tiwolfe
Michael Ejercito wrote in message ...
>> Lungren and Davis both got F's. Steve Kubby got an A, but they won't
endorse
>> parties that don't pay them off I guess.
>>
>> --
>> Mark
> Why did Lungren and Davis get F's?
>
>
> Michael
>
>
Mark
won't back them.
I always find it funny how people complain about the Big Money being spent
on campaigns, yet they tell me they won't vote 3rd Party because we don't
have enough money.
People deserve what they get.
Enjoy the Police State!
--
Mark
tiwolf wrote in message <716a0u$kpp$1...@server2.wans.net>...
tiwolf
their lack of organization and the unwillingness to start organizing at the
local levels. Third parties always try to start their party building effort
at the highest levels of government, instead of trying to start their party
building by running for races beyond their capabilities. The 3rd parties
should start building their parties by running candidates for winnable
offices: county level races, mayor, city council, or even state assembly.
But for 3rd parties to try and win state and national level races such as
governors, senate, president, congress is a joke. 3rd party leaders are
kidding themselves and party members when they try and convince people that
they can win a race when they have no party race to sustain a campaign.
The fault is not with the voters, but with the parties. Trying to blame
issue oriented organizations and the voters for the failure of the wannabe
parties is a joke.
tiwolfe
Mark wrote in message ...
tiwolf
change in the California Congressional Delegation to total 52 anti-gun
Congressmen in the US Congress that could sway control into the hands of the
gun grabbers. This is a real possibility if Gray Davis make it to the Gov
Office, preventing this ought to be enough of a reason to get gun owners to
vote for Dan Lundgren, whether or not he makes any pledge. A vote for
Lungren may be hard to swallow, but it is easier than swallowing a than new
federal gun control laws made possible by the votes of 52 anti gun
congressmen from California. Plus think of all the other horrible
legislation that a bunch of liberal gun grabbing fruit cakes from CA would
vote for.
tiwolfe
>So instead you want shooters to vote for the anti-gun republicans? I could
>see voting for one anti-gun republican IF the Ca republican party pledged
>no new gun laws during his term. To vote for Lungren without getting
>something is to encourage the republicans to be even more anti-gun since
>they will get our votes anyway.
>
>If the Reps want to control redistricting in 2000, they should be willing
>to pay for our support. Has anyone contacted Fong and told him how much he
>could gain by trashing the anti-gun agenda?
>
>--
>Free men own guns - slaves don't
>Committees of Correspondence web page:
><http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/>
> nh...@mindspring.com
Nick Hull
> That is if you chose to forget that whoever is governor in 2000 gets to
> redraw the voting districts in the state of California, this gubernatorial
> election will shape the face of California political scene for the next
> decade. Vote 3rd party and you ensure that the Democrats will get to draw
> the district lines thus ensure many more anti-2nd Amendment Dems in the US
> Congress. I think a vote for a Libertarian is less than a wasted vote, it is
> a de facto vote for the current California Democratic Party that is
> vehemently opposed to the 2nd Amendment. This is a vote against all gun
> owners in California.
>
Mark
to get mass exposure. But local campaigns are great also. The LP has
hundreds of people in office all over the nation at many levels, and there
are several fronts working at once to gain exposure. Trying to get the party
of the individual to go with ONE "right way" has been part of our problem
lately, so I don't agree that there is ONE solution.
The Bottom line still rests with the Voters. Trying to blame the
"salesperson" for the buyers not shopping around is a joke also.
--
Mark
tiwolf wrote in message <718oi7$9gk$1...@server2.wans.net>...
Lynette Warren
> In respect to why most issue oriented organizations will not back a 3rd
> party candidate is simple; it is for the most part a waste of time,
> energy, and resources to back a candidate that has no shot at winning a
> major election.
By backing no one the NRA *is* backing a loser.
In fact it's a waste of the NRA's resources not to back Steve Kubby. For
example when NRA members receive the bright orange post cards in the mail
with a list of NRA endorsements on them, it would have cost them nothing
to write the name "Steve Kubby" on that card. Instead they just wrote "no
endorsement" top of the list where the gubernatorial endorsement would
have gone. This tells me they want you to hold your nose and vote for
gun grabber Lungren, but the NRA hasn't got the integrity to just come out
and tell you that.
I'm very disappointed in the NRA. I think I'll start responding to all
their fundraising mail by telling them I'd like to donate, but based on
the NRA's gutless stance on the California governor's race, I have to
concentrate on sending my $$$ to the Gun Owners of California who did
endorse the only pro-RKBA candidate in the race.
Lynette
--
Nick Hull
<ar...@cachecow.surfari.net> wrote:
If you never vote for what you want, you will never get it.
Jerry Stratton
<ar...@cachecow.surfari.net> wrote:
>In fact it's a waste of the NRA's resources not to back Steve Kubby. For
>example when NRA members receive the bright orange post cards in the mail
>with a list of NRA endorsements on them, it would have cost them nothing
>to write the name "Steve Kubby" on that card. Instead they just wrote "no
>endorsement" top of the list where the gubernatorial endorsement would
>have gone. This tells me they want you to hold your nose and vote for
>gun grabber Lungren, but the NRA hasn't got the integrity to just come out
>and tell you that.
Actually, they do, I got the letter asking me to vote for Lungren, and
that's pretty much the way they said it :*)
Their reasoning is that California is up for redistricting in the next
governor's term; if Davis is elected, they say, gun owners will be
marginalized through redistribution.
This is probably valid reasoning; Lungren might want to marginalize gun
owners, but he would run the risk of also marginalizing Republicans, which
would cause him trouble, since he is one.
This doesn't change your basic point, however, which is true: the NRA has
to start letting Republicans (and Democrats) know that their votes *can*
go elsewhere. I think they need to start focusing on 'lesser' elections
(someone mentioned the Lt. Governor race here) and start grooming some
competition.
Jerry
je...@hoboes.com
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/ e-mail he...@hoboes.com
What Your Children Are Doing: http://www.hoboes.com/html/NetLife/Children/
Jeff Bishop
> In article <CKb_1.875$mg.55...@twinkie.callamer.com>, Lynette Warren
> This doesn't change your basic point, however, which is true: the NRA has
> to start letting Republicans (and Democrats) know that their votes *can*
> go elsewhere. I think they need to start focusing on 'lesser' elections
> (someone mentioned the Lt. Governor race here) and start grooming some
> competition.
To a very limited extend, they do this already. If you check the fine print in
their voter guides, they usually note that they don't have (i.e., want to use)
enough space to cover all candidates, but Libertarians are generally pro-gun.
They could use about the same amount of space to say that Libertarians are 99%
pro-gun to the hilt, the other 1% consisting of Howard Stern types who draw the
bulk of their support from outside the LP.
Matthew Devney
and has actively worked to repeal CA's version of it.
Can we say "Up with Crime"? Good, I knew we could. Lone_Wolf wrote:
>
--
Matthew Devney
========================================================================
** Pilot Network Services, Inc. (800) 811-5222 **
** 1080 Marina Village Parkway FAX (510) 433-7807 **
** Alameda, CA 94501 USA **
========================================================================
Jeff Bishop
> Lone_Wolf wrote:
> > Because both the Republican and Democrat running are gun grabbers?
> Lungren isn't. He refused to enforce the federal "Assault Weapons Ban,"
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Since when has the *federal* law been an
issue in California? At most, he has refused to enforce a creative, legally untenable
interpretation of the *state* law, and was pretty quick to cave into pressure from gun-grabbers
even on that issue.
> and has actively worked to repeal CA's version of it.
By defending it in court and sharing time with HCI?
> Can we say "Up with Crime"? Good, I knew we could.
Except that his positions are exactly the opposite of what you claim, and crime has declined
steadily in recent decades - before and after this ill-conceieved "assault" rifle ban. But hey,
facts have never gotten in the way of your posts before, so why start now?
crazyj...@hotmail.com
You'd think by supporting RKBA canidate early in their careers things
could get better.
I recently viewed a RKBA site at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/7918/
which had some very good info re the
banning 'assault weapons' sham.
> > I'm very disappointed in the NRA. I think I'll start responding to all
> > their fundraising mail by telling them I'd like to donate, but based on
> > the NRA's gutless stance on the California governor's race, I have to
> > concentrate on sending my $$$ to the Gun Owners of California who did
> > endorse the only pro-RKBA candidate in the race.
> >
> > Lynette
> > --
>
> If you never vote for what you want, you will never get it.
>
> --
> Free men own guns - slaves don't
> Committees of Correspondence web page:
> <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/>
> nh...@mindspring.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
rec
every significant statewide office. They are 48:32 in the assembly and 25:15 in the senate. What
will stop them from passing a law in the next session to ban and confiscate all guns? I'm sure
Calderon and Villiagarosa are chomping at the bit, and Gray Davis will be all too happy to oblige
them. For that matter, what will stop them from raising the marginal state tax rate to 99% for
anyone earning over $65,000 per year? Every check on the socialist big-government fanatics has been
blown away. We are doomed. I wonder whether I should pack my things and flee to Nevada before they
erect a new Berlin wall and machine-gun anyone who tries to escape this communist paradise. OK,
perhaps I'm exaggerating a little with the Berlin wall stuff, but I worry that gun rights will
vanish overnight in California and the tax burden isn't going to get any better (except for the
trial lawyers, union members and "civil servants", maybe.) I'm really thinking about moving to
Nevada. That would save me about $10,000/yr in state taxes, and keep it from going to pay for
counterproductive liberal social programs.
Sigh,
Anon
Michael Ejercito
> Lone_Wolf wrote:
> >
> > In <mejercit-271...@134.139.57.114> meje...@csulb.edu
(Michael Ejercito) writes:
> >
> > #In article <712em7$ihg$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, dcl...@best.com (joshua
> > #geller) wrote:
> >
> > #> In article <mejercit-261...@134.139.52.22>,
> > #> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > #>
> > #> > Is it true the National Rifle Association does not endorse any
> > #> >candidates for Governor of California?
> > #>
> > #> Dear Michael,
> > #>
> > #> This is true.
> > #>
> > #> My best,
> > #>
> > #> Josh Geller
> > #> Green Republicans of California
> > # Why doe the NRA refuse to endorse California gubernatorial candidates?
> >
> > Because both the Republican and Democrat running are gun grabbers?
> >
> Lungren isn't. He refused to enforce the federal "Assault Weapons Ban,"
> and has actively worked to repeal CA's version of it.
Since when was it the job of the Attorney General of the State of
California to enforce federal laws? We have plenty of U.S. Marshals that
can enforce such a law.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Q: How do you separate the men from the boys in the National Alliance?
A: With a crowbar.
_